alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2010 6:15 PM 

To: EBSA, E-ORI - EBSA

Subject: Re RIN 1210 AB33

Our Group provides a number of 401k plans around the Northwest. We use platforms that fully 

disclose all fees, offer well over 100 different investment options from no risk to very risky and 

significant education to help people understand risk and reward in each option and how much 

they may need to earn to retire. In short, we help them understand where they should be. 

 

Over the years, we have found each individual has a different approach with their money. Many 

like to manage it themselves because they can invest in the risk that they want. Others don't. 

The point is the ability to move money from one discipline to another as you change risk 

tolerances and required cash at retirement is the flexibility people need. 

 

For the DOL to step in and just say we are taking XX% away from you and put it in treasuries as 

an annuity poses a serious problem for those that need to invest more aggressively to be able to 

retire comfortably, which is probably most of the country. Good education can solve where to put 

your money with acceptable risk, so focus on how we advisors can deliver that message more 

effectively, not the cram down of an annuity that GUARANTEES many retiring people will not 

have enough money to live on. 

 

Like others, some of our participants lost a lot of money in 2008. But out of the thousands we 

work with, we did not receive ONE complaint because those that were investing using an 

aggressive model knew the risk going into it because of education. 

 

This bill is a knee jerk reaction to the marketplace. Don't do it!
PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: 9/18/15 

Received: September 18, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8l71-94m2

Comments Due: September 24, 2015

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EBSA-2010-0050

Definition of the Term ‘‘Fiduciary’’; Conflict of Interest Rule—Retirement Investment Advice; 

Notice of proposed rulemaking and withdrawal of previous proposed rule.

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0050-0204

Definition of the Term Fiduciary; Conflict of Interest Rule- Retirement Investment Advice

Document: EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-5296

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-08831

Submitter Information

Name: Grant Pollack

Address: 

1123 Meadowlark Drive

Waterford, MI, 48327

Email: gpollack@cfiemail.com

Phone: 248-648-8598

General Comment

My concern relates to the manner of which an investment will be considered "suitable". How 

will this panel determine an investment vehicle meets this criteria, and how will they conduct a 

consistent overview? 

An advisor can make a recommendation with the propper due diligence which aligns with the 

client's risk profile and investment objectives and still underperforms in a declining market. 

How will Congress plan to protect clients from predatory attorneys from arguing suitability after 

the fact of when the recommendation in question was made? I think it is important a clear line is 

drawn making distinction between events with a clear conflict of interests which were unsuitable 

based solely on the client's risk tolerance and liquidity requirements, and actual performance will 

be taken in reference to market environments at the time of recommendation.

Thanks for your time.
Sincerely,

Grant Pollack
Editorial Note on Part 40
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 40 appear at 73 FR 33329, June 12, 2008.

§ 40.109 What documentation must the laboratory keep, and for how long? ( a ) As a laboratory, you must retain all records pertaining to each employee urine specimen for a minimum of two years.
( b ) As a laboratory, you must also keep for two years employer-specific data required in § 40.111.
( c ) Within the two-year period, the MRO, the employee, the employer, or a DOT agency may request in writing that you retain the records for an additional period of time (*e.g.,* for the purpose of preserving evidence for litigation or a safety investigation). If you receive such a request, you must comply with it. If you do not receive such a request, you may discard the records at the end of the two-year period.
EDWARD SUMMERS

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 17

- 3385

_________ ____________________/

Opinion filed November 2, 2017.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County

. Marianne L. Aho , Judge

.

Edward Summers, pro se , Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

A FFIRMED.

LEWIS, KELSEY, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., CONCUR.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                            1820
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       10
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  1830
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    1830
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               90
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                        1740
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      1830
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    79
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       14
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   176
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (112)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (112)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (112)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.49)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.49)
        

</TABLE>
§ 585.1 Definitions. ( a ) All terms defined in 49 U.S.C. 30102 are used in accordance with their statutory meaning.
( b ) The terms *bus, gross vehicle weight rating* or *GVWR, motor vehicle, multipurpose passenger vehicle, passenger car,* and *truck* are used as defined in § 571.3 of this chapter.
( c ) *Production year* means the 12-month period between September 1 of one year and August 31 of the following year, inclusive, unless otherwise specified.
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 19-11262

Summary Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Michael Adair Mankin, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:05-CR-193-1

Before Higginbotham, Jones, and Costa, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Michael Adair Mankin appeals the revocation of his supervised 

release and resulting 10-month term of imprisonment. Mankin’s supervised 

release was revoked under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(g), which requires the 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should 

not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 

5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 24, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 19-11262 Document: 00515502565 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/24/2020
No. 19-11262

2

revocation of supervised release and prison time for defendants found to have 

committed specified drug- or gun-related violations.

On appeal, Mankin argues for the first time that § 3583(g) is 

unconstitutional in light of United States v. Haymond, 139 S. Ct. 2369 (2019), 

because it does not require a jury determination of guilt beyond a reasonable 

doubt. Review of this unpreserved issue is for plain error, which requires him 

to show (1) an error that has not been affirmatively waived, (2) that is clear 

or obvious, and (3) that affected his substantial rights. See Puckett v. United 

States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If he can satisfy those three prongs, this 

court has the discretion to correct the error if it seriously affects the fairness, 

integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. See id.

Haymond addressed the constitutionality of § 3583(k), and the 

plurality opinion specifically disclaimed expressing any view of the 

constitutionality of § 3583(g). See Haymond, 139 S. Ct. at 2382 n.7. In the 

absence of precedent from either the Supreme Court or this court extending 

Haymond to § 3583(g), we conclude that there is no clear or obvious error. 

See Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135; United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667, 671 (5th Cir. 

2009). 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 19-11262 Document: 00515502565 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/24/2020
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 18-0423

Filed February 6, 2019

IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF MAJA LIANA CLAYTON

AND SCOTT ELLIOTT CLAYTON

Upon the Petition of

MAJA LIANA CLAYTON,

Petitioner-Appellee,

And Concerning

SCOTT ELLIOTT CLAYTON,

Respondent-Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Poweshiek County, Joel D. Yates, 

Judge.

Respondent appeals from an order denying his petition for modification. 

AFFIRMED.

Christopher A. Clausen of Clausen Law Office, Ames, for appellant.

Reyne L. See of Peglow, O'Hare & See, P.L.C., Marshalltown, for appellee.

Considered by Vogel, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and McDonald, JJ.
2

McDONALD, Judge.

Scott Clayton filed a petition to modify his child support obligation, seeking 

to reduce the amount of his child support obligation. Maja Clayton, his former 

spouse, filed a counterclaim, seeking to increase Scott’s child support obligation. 

The district court denied Scott’s petition and granted Maja’s counterclaim. In so 

doing, the district court made explicit credibility findings that Scott’s testimony and 

evidence regarding his income was not credible. In contrast, the district court 

found Maja’s testimony and evidence credible. Scott timely filed this appeal. 

On de novo review, see In re Marriage of Robbins, 510 N.W.2d 844, 844 

(Iowa 1994), we affirm the judgment of the district court. The more credible 

evidence, including the parties’ testimony, expert testimony, tax returns, and other 

financial records, supports the district court’s findings regarding Scott and Maja’s 

respective incomes. See In re Marriage of Knickerbocker, 601 N.W.2d 48, 51 

(Iowa 1999) (“In calculating child support, the first step is to determine the parents’ 

current monthly net income from the most reliable evidence presented.”); Hillman 

v. Cannon, No. 11-0367, 2011 WL 6670657, at *6 (Iowa Ct. App. Dec. 21, 2011)

(discussing evidence relevant to establishing a partnership); In re Marriage of Will, 

602 N.W.2d 202, 204 (Iowa Ct. App. 1999) (explaining that “completed federal 

and/or state income tax returns are the best evidence of income and tax liability”). 

We have considered each of the parties’ arguments whether or not set forth 

explicitly herein. We affirm the judgment of the district court without further opinion. 

See Iowa Ct. R. 21.26(1)(a),(d),(e). We decline Maja’s request for appellate 

attorney fees. See Iowa Code §598.36 (2017) (allowing for an award of fees). 

AFFIRMED.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Justice

###### Antitrust Division

                    Notice is hereby given that, on June 23, 2023, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), Subcutaneous Drug Development & Delivery Consortium, Inc. (“Subcutaneous Drug Development & Delivery Consortium, Inc.”) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, Becton, Dickinson and Company, Franklin Lakes, NJ, has been added as a party to this venture.                

No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and Subcutaneous Drug Development & Delivery Consortium, Inc. intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.

                    On October 26, 2020, Subcutaneous Drug Development & Delivery Consortium, Inc. filed its original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on December 3, 2020 (85 FR 78148).                

                    The last notification was filed with the Department on December 21, 2022. A notice was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on January 25, 2023 (88 FR 4850).                

Suzanne Morris,

Deputy Director Civil Enforcement Operations, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 2023-18088 Filed 8-22-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE P
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: In the Interest of P.M. & E.M., Children

Appellate case number: 01

- 22

- 00753

- CV

Trial court case number: 2021

- 01374J

Trial court: 313th District Court of Harris C ounty

On November 23, 2022, Appellant M.M. filed an Unopposed Motion for Extension of

Time to File Appellate Brief, requesting an extension until December 13, 2022 to file her brief.

Also on N ovember 23, 2022, Appellant J.S.M.R. a/k/a J.M. filed a n Unopp osed First Motion for

Extension of Time to File A p pellant ’ s Brief, requesting an extensi on unti l December 9 , 2022 to

file his brief. Both briefs were due November 23, 2022.

We grant both motions. Both briefs are due De cember 13, 2022

.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Veronica Rivas

- Molloy

Acting individually

Date: December 1, 2022
September 26, 2012

Attachment G

Worksheet Used to Calculate Registrant Labor Costs

This attachment is available as part of the electronic docket EPA

- HQ

- OPP

- 2012

- 0544, Notice

of Supplemental Distribution of a Registered Pesticide Product , EPA ICR No. 0278.11, OMB

Control No. 2070

- 0044

, and is part of the ICR’s Supporting Statement

.



### NAICS: 325300

Pesticide Registrants

Labor Category: Formula Managerial Technical Clerical

Unloaded Hourly Rate 1 = W $57.42 $28.32 $17.02

Benefits Percentage 2 Lb = B/W 44% 44% 44%

Benefits per hour B = W*Lb $25.31 $12.49 $7.50

Loaded Hourly Rate Wb = W + B =

W(1+Lb) $82.73 $40.81 $24.52

Overhead Percentage 3 Lo = OH/Wb 50% 50% 50%

Overhead per hour OH = Wb*Lo $41.37 $20.40 $12.26

Fully Loaded Hourly

Rate Wf = Wb + OH

= W + B + OH $124.10 $61.21 $36.79

1. Data Source: BLS http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics4_325300.htm May 2011 data

NAICS 325300

- Pesticide, Fertilizer, and Other Agricultural Chemical Manufacturing

Standard Occupational Codes:

Management: 11

- 0000, Management Occupations

Technical: 19

- 0000, Life, Physical, and Social Science

Occupations

Clerical: 43

- 0000, Office and Administrative Support

Occupations

2. Fringe benefits/wage per hour. The average for non farm, non federal civilian workers.

3. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual, Sixth Edition

, EPA

- 452

- 02

- 001, January 2002, pg. 2

- 34. The loading for indirect costs is within the range of 20

- 70% of the load labor rate (wage + benefits) suggested in EPA guidance.
#### § 520.2 Policy.

The agency will strive to carry out the full intent and purpose of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and related orders and statutes, and take positive steps to avoid any action which could adversely affect the quality of the human environment.
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 29 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 29

    Relating to the treatment of veterans with Alzheimer's disease.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 6, 2001

Mr. Baldacci submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
                   the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
    Relating to the treatment of veterans with Alzheimer's disease.

Whereas an estimated 30 percent of the patients in veterans nursing home 
        facilities suffer from Alzheimer's Disease or some other form of 
        dementia;
Whereas only a very small number of facilities exist that are dedicated to 
        treating patients with Alzheimer's disease and to developing improved 
        protocols to treat the disorder;
Whereas the aging of the United States veterans population is expected to hinder 
        the capability of traditional veterans nursing home facilities to care 
        for veterans with Alzheimer's disease;
Whereas Department of Veterans Affairs researchers have discovered a genetic 
        association to the development of Alzheimer's in humans and continue to 
        pioneer dementia research; and
Whereas research indicates that the traditional nursing home model may not 
        provide the most effective method of treating patients with Alzheimer's 
        disease: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives 
that--
            (1) in authorizing medical facility projects and leases for 
        the Department of Veterans Affairs, Congress should authorize 
        projects and leases for facilities, in urban and rural 
        locations, that are designed specifically for purposes of 
        treating veterans with Alzheimer's disease and conducting 
        research relating to Alzheimer's disease;
            (2) the Secretary of Veterans Affairs should encourage 
        innovation in the methods utilized by Department health care 
        personnel in treating veterans with Alzheimer's disease; and
            (3) the Secretary should encourage and facilitate the 
        sharing of information on Alzheimer's disease among Department 
        facilities and personnel.
                                 <all>
```